Confluence Node MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions copying content and attachments, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this creates a completely independent copy or maintains links to the original, what permissions are required, whether it's an atomic operation, what happens if the target space doesn't exist, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides useful context about KMS. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what error conditions might occur, or important behavioral constraints. While the schema covers parameter documentation well, the description fails to provide the necessary operational context for a tool that modifies data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions copying attachments (which matches the 'copyAttachments' parameter) and provides context about KMS being an internal system alias. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '复制 Confluence (KMS) 页面到新位置。支持复制页面内容和附件。' This specifies the verb ('复制' - copy), resource ('Confluence (KMS) 页面' - Confluence pages), and scope (content and attachments). It distinguishes from siblings like 'confluence_create_page' (create new) and 'confluence_update_page' (modify existing), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when copying is preferable to creating a new page from scratch, or how it differs from other page manipulation tools like 'confluence_upsert_page'. The only contextual information is that KMS is an internal Confluence system alias, which doesn't help with tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.